Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

CWmike writes "Documents obtained by the Electronic Privacy Information Center (EPIC) suggest that the US Department of Homeland Security has signed contracts for the development of mobile and static systems that can be used scan pedestrians and people at rail and bus stations and special event venues — apparently at times without their knowledge. Under consideration: An Intelligent Pedestrian Surveillance platform; an X-Ray Backscatter system that could detect concealed metallic and high-density plastic objects on people from up to 10 meters away; a walk-through x-ray screening system that could be deployed at entrances to special events or other points of interest, which could be installed in corridors and likely scan people walking through it without them knowing it, EPIC said."

If the technology is out there to do this safely and securely, how could it possibly be a bad thing. These being used at major gatherings - Olympics, Superbowl, World Cup - all round the world these should be able to be used given the current state of the world we live in.

But the safety of the machines is still somewhat in question. The government says they're fine, but researchers in the field aren't quite so sure. You can't just go around radiating people. Beyond the obvious privacy concerns, there are health concerns as well.

Sorry, that has nothing to do with flying and everything to do with crossing the border into the country. The article you linked to is about Customs seizing and inspecting laptops. The idea that the Fourth Amendment does not apply at Customs goes back to when the Framers of the Constitution were still running the country.
We really need to improve education in this country. Seizing and inspecting laptops is not a new invasion of privacy. It is just that we carry more information about ourselves and our business on a laptop then people traditionally did when most information was on paper.

Actually the right to travel without government interference *is* guaranteed in the constitution. Or more to the point the right to stop you from traveling is *not* given to the government in the constitution. Also keep in mind that a drivers license is more analogous to a pilot's license than to airline passengers being allowed to passively sit in a seat. It has more to do with driving competency than safety. If you want to make a fair comparison compare it to being a passenger in a car. By that logic prepare for your children to be strip searched and photographed naked every time they get into your SUV. After all you don't have to drive. You could walk or ride a bicycle or even a horse. The fact is there is no clear line that can be drawn where 4th amendment violations are acceptable and where they are not. They should never be acceptable and any supreme court justice who rules otherwise should be charged with treason and hanged. That may seem crazy to you but it wouldn't to the people who founded this republic in the first place.

If the government is not the one requiring the search, then there is no violation. You consent to that search when you want to get on someone else's property.

Actually it is still a violation as long as it is an agent of the government that is actually doing the search. But in the particular case we are discussing (of TSA and VIPRE checkpoints and surveillance) the government most definitely *is* the one requiring the search. You act as if the TSA were a private company contracted by the airlines. That is simply not the case.

The moment you step into any private place and agree to the terms that the owner requires of you for staying there, you give up those rights.

So if I start an airline which doesn't "request" any assistance from the TSA then you would have no problem with it? What if I were to mandate that there be no security at all? No metal detectors, no bag xrays. Nothing. Otherwise you can't step on any of my planes. Seem reasonable to you? After all I own the planes. Oh wait, the TSA and DHS and US Government would not allow that. In fact, every single one of my customers would be arrested when they tried to get to my aircraft without being searched at the T

Why would they be allowed to operate a medical device without a doctor present?

This is the same reason I refuse to go through the machines at the airport. I wouldn't use an xray machine without a doctor, and in fact I believe it's illegal to do so. So why would I let some minimum wage security guard xray me?

It's not a medical device. Something does not become a medical device just by virtue of using X-rays.

That's right. When it isn't being used as a medical device it is more analogous to a weapon. Xrays are ionizing radiation and highly dangerous to human beings. Perhaps the resistance movement in the US should start making portable xray guns and kill TSOs with high doses of "safe" radiation.

Indeed. The laws of physics, specifically concerning the creation and destruction of matter and energy, would indicate that in order to "radiate people" you'd have to have not only one hell of an energy source on your person, but something akin to an insanely cool energy-to-matter converter capable of creating atoms in the precise configuration as to generate a person.

Now, on the other hand, you may have meant "you can't just go around irradiating people", as in the verb irradiating, which means "exposing to radiation."

and I'd much rather know that there was no way anything was getting in to the stadium that shouldn't be there.

Then there is a very simple solution: everyone who wants to get into an event must strip completely and put their pile of clothes and things into the x-ray machine before they walk through a metal detector.

This solves both problems: nothing that shouldn't get in does, and you aren't exposed to any radiation (above and beyond the normal background).

Then there is a very simple solution: everyone who wants to get into an event must strip completely and put their pile of clothes and things into the x-ray machine before they walk through a metal detector.

Unless you have "something that shouldn't be there" stuffed inside the bodily orifice of your choice. Wake up, people: there is NO WAY to stop a sufficiently motivated criminal. Risk is a fact of life; I'd rather live free and accept the marginally greater risk that comes with that freedom than live in a totalitarian nanny state.

So who says someone couldn't just walk up to the giant gatherings *outside* a stadium and blow those people up? Or release a highly poisonous chemical into the water system for the stadium?
I doubt such a system would actually do much to increase security. I know they haven't done much for the air-based transport in the US.

I agree - that's why I said "If... safely and securely". Privacy concerns in this respect wouldn't worry me. Living in the UK I'm aiming to go to several Olympic events in 2012 - and I'd much rather know that there was no way anything was getting in to the stadium that shouldn't be there.

Need I actually point out that these machines will NOT allow you to know that 'there was no way anything was getting in'? They may make you think this is true and make you feel happy and warm and fuzzy about how safe you are, but nothing really changes --- except that a lot of people carrying a lot of innocuous things will get hassled and have their personal belongings confiscated, all in the name of making stupid people feel safer. Not actually BE safer, mind you, just feel that way.

It should not be a surprise to anyone here that installing such a system at any Olympics venue will simply be viewed as a challenge to act by any nefarious types, even those whose sole goal is to bypass challenges like this and not actually harm you.

a lot of people carrying a lot of innocuous things will get hassled and have their personal belongings confiscated, all in the name of making stupid people feel safer.

None of it is about weapons. It's all about concession stands (and preventing people from bringing in "outside" beer). Weapons are just an excuse to make people think rooting through your belongings makes sense.

What about all the reports of the things these scanners seem to miss? Search the news--there are multiple reports of things getting through that shouldn't. Also, if they can't get in with their weapons of terror, they'll just do it outside. All the invasive full-body scanners didn't do a damn thing in Moscow. They'll just blow up the airport before the security checkpoint (where hundreds of people are probably waiting) instead. They don't really care. So they'll blow up the street outside the stadium where

The US government spent the 7 years following 9/11 keeping people terrified. If you read that as the government doing the terrorist's job, you possess properly working higher brain function.

In fact, the US reaction went way beyond anything "the enemy" could have hoped for.

The alleged mastermind said directly that the attack was intended to bring financial harm to the US. The US responded with trillions of dollars of wartime debt. As a token of appreciation, the US threw in recruitment benefits that will help terrorist organizations for decades. While they were at it, the US government stomped all over rights of the its citizens. Heck, why not? As if that wasn't enough, they also work very hard at keeping the terror of 9/11 alive, playing with "threat levels" whenever the people don't seem terrified enough.

The truly astounding thing is how much money they are continually throwing at things that do not improve security at all.

This will not play well with the/. crowd, but these high tech electronic gizmos don't work. People have made it through screening with handguns. And as people have said since the get-go, people don't even need to get past the security check to terrorize at airports (presumably all terrorist targets are air travel centric).

Maybe gizmos act as a deterrent, "Ooh, surely their superior technology form an impenetrable barrier, lets just give up trying" but I doubt it.

Many people have been arguing for more effective, lower tech solutions that actually will work. Dogs and pigs can detect an enormous range of aromas, don't need to see a nearly undressed image of your body, don't need to physically touch your naughty bits, and don't expose you to radiation.

If the government goal was effective security, wouldn't they use the very inexpensive and very effective dogs rather than the machines that cost millions and are not effective?

What would be more intimidating, a refrigerator-sized machine or a pack of hungry looking German Shepherds sniffing at your pant leg?

Did you see how I put a link to the letter I was referring to so everyone can read it and formulate their own opinion? Do you think perhaps you could do the same for the sources you're referring to? It adds a lot of credence to your argument.

I'm afraid I don't have much confidence in the study from the inventor (who is for obvious reasons, biased), but would certainly be interested in seeing the John Hopkins reports you mentioned. Here's what I found out about the John Hopkins reports from a quick google se

"Safely" is the key word, imho. There's no reliable data (ie, not provided by the manufacturers of the devices themselves) as to the level of x-ray exposure and the long term effects of repeated exposures. There's no way to know how "safe" they are until longitudinal studies can be completed and that takes a long time. In the mean time, it's "take our word for it." I'd rather not.

Additionally with 'concealed' scanners you would be receiving and unknown and uncontrolled level of dosage. Where a paranoid nutjob that never leaves there home until they go on a killing spree will get no radiation zaps from these toys, the home team supporter may get hundreds or more in a year. Can you find any competent radiologist who would say that's acceptable? I really doubt it. Heck, I had one balk at giving me a fourth x-ray that year (it was still spring), how do you think they'd feel about someone getting zapped 5 times in one football game or court hearing? (Imagine the units were installed in stadiums, airports, bus/rail stations, malls, government buildings, schools, etc. Invisible things are place more than the same visible item because people don't raise a fuss since they don't notice them.)

Worse yet, what if someone stopped and stood in the scan location. Yes, the scan location will be unmarked. You don't employ a 'covert' scanning device and put up a big flashing sign that says "stand here to be covertly x-rayed". And yes, people will do it if it's an entryway, they'll even do it in a doorway. You want to know how many people I've seen get hit by automated doors closing because they stood in the doorway itself where the sensor couldn't see them? Let's just leave it at a lot. Think about it, how often do you see people standing in entryways and the like, not caring if they are blocking the way for others. Even though you might like the idea of a little revenge on them, is possible death and other somewhat less serious health issues an appropriate punishment for being obliviously impolite?

Funny thing is, I don't remember reading that caveat anywhere in the 4th Amendment </sarc> Did you actually think through the repercussions of that interpretation before parroting the party line? Look what that logic (and I use the term loosely) does to the rest of the Bill of Rights:

"Of course you have a right to free speech, freedom of religion, and the freedom to assemble. You just can't do it on municipal, state or federal property. If you want to speak your mind inside your house, feel free. If you want to worship the FSM, you can do it inside your house, too. And you and as many of your like-minded friends and family who want to assemble can do it in your living room. You can even carry protest signs there, if you like. But if you want to do any of those things, you can't do them anywhere Big Brother is watching."

"Of course you have the right to keep and bear arms -- and that freedom is no longer interpreted as applying only to state militias. You just can't leave your house with your weapons. We aren't forcing you to go anywhere firearms are prohibited, after all. If you want to step outside of your property, you are choosing to do so."

"Of course you have the right to remain silent...unless you are on a public street. We aren't forcing you to leave your house, after all, so if you choose to go to the shopping mall or the gas station and we question you, you have chosen to be somewhere that the 5th Amendment doesn't apply."

If the technology is out there to do this safely and securely, how could it possibly be a bad thing. These being used at major gatherings - Olympics, Superbowl, World Cup - all round the world these should be able to be used given the current state of the world we live in.

Assuming that these were cheap, and completely safe (ha!), you still would be completely wrong in your thinking. You should not be doing this because simply have no right to do this. Do you frisk down everyone who comes to visit you at

At one does have the right to frisk everyone wishing to enter their home, should they chose and the visitor consent before being permitted entry. This, though, is more like checking out the anal cavity of the women in front of you at the check-out line, just in case she has a bomb up there, you know, just in case. Also, poisoning her while you're at it. Without her knowing.

1. The safety of the machines hasn't been proven, they haven't been out long enough to compile long term statistics on their safety to the public and to the people running the scanners. Xrays are ionizing radiation, and even if they don't penetrate the skin I can't imagine that messing around with skin cell DNA molecules is healthy for anyone and there are some real questions [npr.org] about the effects of the machines. What safeguards are in the machine to monitor X-ray levels and prev

...how could it possibly be a bad thing...given the current state of the world we live in[?]

I can't believe I wore a uniform and served my country only to have the likes of you want to piss away all of our freedoms (without a fight!) because you're scared of a HYPOTHETICAL situation.

What a waste. I should've let the Communists hordes win, but Noooo, I had to slog it out in the friggin mud, sand and muck, freeze my *** off in a @*($&# GP-Medium and sweat my **** off humping Alice [wikipedia.org] and Pig [wikipedia.org] all over the &#*($ place for what?

it is stupid to try to divide the world into areas that are safe and areas that are not safe (nothing can ever be completely safe, only safe from certain threats), much better to try to figure out who the bad actors are and stop them directly.

What these guys clearly want is the right to search any and all persons without their knowledge and without anything remotely resembling probable cause. Right now, they can at least claim that you consent to being searched when you decide to board a plane. But this is something different, because you do not consent to a search when you walk down a street.

Sad as I am to say this, I am starting to care less and less about the US security regime. This is something the feds obviously want badly, and damned be innovation, education, and personal freedom. At this pace it's only a matter of time before another country takes advantage of this misguided path and surpasses them in all the areas that are being ignored.:(

I'm sad to inform you that the matter of time has already passed. One could perhaps argue for innovation still, at least that's somewhat comparable. Education and personal freedom, not so much, the US is far from a world leader there.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
They will probably use the olde Family guy argument -
Peter: Brian, are you suggesting that 9/11 didn't change everything?
Brian: What? No, I was just...
Peter: 'Cause 9/11 changed everything, Brian! 9/11 changed everything!

The constitution is just some old yellowing, tattered set of documents written long before we even had typewriters let alone computers. It may as well be some stone tablet uncovered from an archaeological expedition for all it matters now. The founders' mistake was in putting the same kind of faith in it that you are now. Maybe if natural language had been more precise so that founders' intentions couldn't have been twisted into exactly the opposite of what they had intended or interpreted out of existence

Amending the Constitution is so difficult, comrade. Better if we merely ignore [youtube.com] or [epic.org] reinterpret [aclu.org] the Constitution per our whims. For the good of the country, of course.

Just look at all the documentaries that have been produced in the last 20-30 years that come at things from a totally conspiracy theory viewpoint. Shit, some of the more outlandish ones have even been proven right, at least partially.

My plan for dealing with this is actually to build a tinfoi-lined/metallic fabric trenchcoat-hoodie with a Geiger counter built in to detect the X-rays. It would get pretty hot inside so I'd leave it open until X-rays are detected. Maybe hook it up to my phone via bluetooth for upload to a Trapster for backscatter scanners? Oh and maybe add a detector for the microwave scanners if possible.

I'm not worried about the radiation or even care that much about people seeing my junk, it's just to give a big FUCK YO

Yeah, I'm sure covertly x-raying people will go down really well with pregnant women. I don't care if they say backscatter x-rays emit a safe level of radiation that poses no risk to a fetus. I wouldn't trust it. First, I'm not convinced they've done adequate studies. Second, I'm not going to trust an x-ray emitting device that is neither medically certified nor operated by trained medical professionals.

I hate these machines as much as anyone around here, but i'm not so sure pregnant women have anything extra to worry about. The whole point of backscatter/mm-wave scanners are that they don't penetrate much more than clothing. Anything hidden inside a body cavity (like a baby, obviously) wouldn't receive any dosage of radiation because it simply doesn't penetrate that deep.

The backscatter system is designed to penetrate the outer layer of the skin. Experts have written to the US Government with concerns only to be answered with "it is too low power!" But the fact is that these machines cause cancer, the only question is how much cancer and if we're happy with killing one additional person every year, ten, or over a hundred?

Luckily it is impossible to show cause/effect between these machines and the cancers we know they will cause. Thus we can go on irradiating ourselves for many generations to come. I'd be very concerned if I was a frequent flier. You're a guinea pig. But now they want to expand this ineffective and unnecessary security theatre into the general populous? Very scary thought.

It looks as though the dark future is arriving right on schedule for Cyberpunk. All hail Mike Pondsmith [wikipedia.org]. Looks like I'm going to be wearing a trenchcoat in all seasons sooner than I thought.

The numbers I have read indicate that more people will die of backscatter induced cancers each year than would die from a mid-scale Project Orion [wikimedia.org] style single-stage-to-orbit launch. Now, which of those two things (scanning random people boarding airplanes vs getting multiple megatons of material into orbit) has a bigger benefit to humanity?

The backscatter system is designed to penetrate the outer layer of the skin.

Close. The backscatter system is designed to collect photons that are scattered from the outer layer of the body. The ones that keep on going clear through or are absorbed don't matter. But you can see lung and bone shadows in even the officially released photos, so we know the photons are going deeper than the skin before being scattered.

No level of x-ray exposure is safe. Nothing above zero. Each exposure carries a certain ri

How many people will die in long car trips because they'd rather drive 19 hours than get in this silly contraption that's going to do nothing to make them safer from being strangled by the shoulder strap on a laptop bag?

I mean, seriously, the 9/11 hijackers used box cutters. They weren't carrying guns or explosives. They were using what they could get through security at the time, and guns and most explosives were already banned on flights. A reasonably fit and determined group of men could garrote passenge

some thing like celebrity TSA Scans, showing all the boob jobs. all the images are done digitally so they are kept . The system is supposed to delete them, however a simple setting change can fix that. with time date stamps, and an accurate watch, guards in the back will know which files belong to whom.

If you obscure your scan in an airport (say, wrap your stuff in metal foil or put some of those fancy sheets of steel with the 4th amendment cut into it) you get denied access to the plane. OK, that's easy, and it makes cop-sense that you're opting out of your flight if you don't consent to the search. And I guess the same logic could apply to major events and the like, though I can see people having even less patience for the security theater on their way into something fun.

And why aren't these people in jail? Really from what I have seen reading experiences, it is obvious that the TSA people definitely enjoy looking at certain people more than others and can even be caught joking about it. It's not really their fault, because many of them are young people, and in their shoes I'm sure I would enjoy scanning that really cute blond too. But this is more about the sex crazed government guys sitting on their poles. Many of them are whining about pornography, that homosexuality

I understand your concern about dental X-rays. I have an implant that needs to be checked every year or so, so I'd like to limit exposure.

One thing that helps: Find a dentist that has invested in a digital X-ray system. Rather than sticking a piece of film in your mouth, they put a small sensor that is about the same surface area and a bit thicker (but not flexible). Aside from the convenience and efficiency issues, the digital sensor is much more sensitive than film. So, the X-ray source can be set

Not thrilled with the Transportation Security Administration's new touchy-feely pat down techniques and full-body scanners? Now there's a line of underclothes that offer a friendly reminder of the Fourth Amendment during controversial searches.

It's called 4th Amendment Wear.

Metallic ink printed on shirts spells out the privacy rights stated in the amendment and is designed to appear in TSA scanners.

Seriously. Irradiating people without their knowledge - what could possibly go wrong? Including children.

There are scientists who are concerned that the govt guys have their numbers on safety wrong - in fact they have the right numbers but they are interpreting them wrongly. Take the backscatter X-ray approach for instance. The total radiation dose divided by the total body volume is low - however in fact that's not true. Because the radiation doesn't penetrate the whole body, its energy gets dispersed only

Okay, let's just consider this for a bit. Storage costs are dropping like a lead balloon. Chip costs as well.

Soon the idea that people are filming their lives constantly will be a fact rather than a story.

Image processing of said films and audio will allow us to ask our devices where we put our keys, and they will answer (think cheap massive storage meets IBM's Watson).

Our cars will drive themselves (seriously, 40,000 deaths per year because people can't drive well consistently WILL be converted into less than 400 deaths per year because automated cars have limits). First the cars will just kick in when they have to to save our lives, then they will just take over the job. And they will be able to record where we have been, and be able to discuss where we want to go within that historical and geographical context (car meets Watson).

But then things get sinister. The TSA/FBI/CIA/... will be able to record all sorts of things, and ask about what people have been doing. (Video surveillance meets Watson). And there is going to be piles of video for "Surveillance Watson" to think about. Think traffic cameras, hummingbird sized drones, parking lot cameras, etc.

People are going to go into a rage here about the radiation. But what happens when we figure out how to simply understand the changes to the background radiation just because people are walking about? We have all sorts of RF to use, all materials give off a certain amount of radiation, and we are walking through all of it. We have all sorts of sonic sources to process. The bottom line is that passive sensors will *at some point* be able to do what requires active radiation sources today.

Today the limits on processing random data streams limits what government can do with all these sources of information that produce tons and tons of junk for each ounce of "useful-to-three-letter-org" information. The law is increasingly irrelevant when it comes to restraining what these organizations do. What has saved us is that it is just too hard to process that much data.

But at some point it will NOT be too hard to process that much data. We need to make the law RELEVANT in restraining how we are observed, because even if I am wrong about the details I gave above, I am not wrong about the trend. The fact is that technology is going to be increasingly on the side of those that want to know everything about us even if they have no right to gather that information. And we will increasingly see this used to punish those that oppose those in power.

When you put someone into the scanner, it's reasonable to assume the image the TSA agent sees on the screen is of the person standing inside. But with 10, 20, or how many people walking through a scan tunnel at once, it's likely a matter of time before someone figures out a way to jerk the equipment into thinking the guy 6 feet to his left has contraband on his person. Kind of like how a shoplifter will walk through the electronic sentry at the exit, just as someone else walks throu

Of course, the reality is worse. Dr David Brenner, head of Columbia University's Center for Radiological Research is reporting the machines are likely to routinely emit 20 times the radiation reported in the spec and are flat out a major public health risk. Dr. John Sedat, Professor of BioChemistry and Biophysics at the University of California San Francisco and a member of the National Academy of Sciences sent a letter to the White House with the following:

“it appears that real independent safety data do not exist There has not been sufficient review of the intermediate and long-term effects of radiation exposure associated with airport scanners. There is good reason to believe that these scanners will increase the risk of cancer to children and other vulnerable populations.”

By the TSA's own numbers, which are undoubtedly low, they calculate more people will die from the eventual cancers than have been killed by all the terrorist acts in the world put together.

OK, so that's one side of the argument. What does the DHS have to say? Where are the medical professionals willing to certify these machines as safe?

Turns out, there aren't any. No medical professional of any kind has yet been willing to sign their name in public stating that these machines are safe. The only people saying so are the vendors who won the contract, and even they refuse to state unequivacably that the machines are safe, falling back instead on "We've built the machine to your spec and they should perform as ordered."

No one, not even the maker of the machines, is willing to certify them as safe.

As someone who worked in medical imaging, I'll add there is no documentation of what exposure you are getting, when you got it, etc. At least in a hospital, they make sure they don't X-ray you too much.

TSA does not have your health in mind, else these scanners would be FDA approved. Unlike a hospital which would get sued into oblivion if they ever used something not FDA approved.

There are many places, by my personal suggestion would be Finland. Also to be considered on one's short-list in my opinion: Norway, Switzerland, Cuba, Sweden. They will differ a bit in certain aspects, but in terms of quality of life stemming from education, health care, environmental respect, and personal freedoms they're all quite good.

You could be absolutely right that all that data if propaganda, but if we're not going to use any data at all due to our inability to verify it personally (at least I can't), that doesn't mean we should resort to single data points either. Again, I'm not saying it's paradise there and no one ever gets sick and there are no health problems or systemic problems at all, but it certainly isn't nearl